Posted on 09/08/2010 10:35:01 PM PDT by bibletruth
Predestination...is it Biblical... or is it a doctrine of Beelzebub (devil)
Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Did you read that! Is is not of him (man) that wills: self will. It is not of him (man) that runs. BUT of God what sheweith mercy.
People, what is mercy? If I perform some act of goodness by free will, then let's say, God chooses me; then my goodness has caused God, in eternity past, to choose me; this choice is not out of mercy! Mercy indicates that I did not deserve it. Oh but you'll say: well, you had other things you performed that were evil. Yes, In Adam, I was a sinner. But me performing some goodness does not constitute pure mercy on God's part: for if God chooses everyone who performed some act of goodness; then God has chosen based upon man that wills and man that runs to perform good works so that God will certainly make a good choose. Let's go back to Romans to see how this works:
Romans 9:20 Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
God is willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endures the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. And made known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.
Hath not the potter [God] power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Who is making he clay? Who is making one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? If God, which He had afore (before) prepared unto glory, those vessels of mercy: how then does a man's free will participate in his choosing? God answers you thus: Romans 9:20 Shall the thing formed say to HIM THAT FORMED IT, Why hast thou made me thus?
If man can thus participate in his choosing, as the vessel of mercy, then man has participated in his [clay] forming, and if this is true [according to free will, it is], then we, as free willist, will find a problem with Scripture in Romans 9:15 I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Free will, then, makes these scripture verses a lie: making God a liar.
Does God have priorities? Or is everything held in the same importance?
"Sick god", you say
Romans 9:20 Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Those verses, do support that God does not call EVERYONE to follow Him.
When you refer to God as sick, you are operating In Adam
Also, Titus 2 clearly indicates that all men have been called.
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
And Romans 9 writes:
Romans 9:20 Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Not ALL are vessels of mercy; some are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.
These are God's Words, not mine.
And Romans 9 does not mean what you think means. Read it in context.
This comment was directed towards the 2 Timothy passage.
Of course, all men have been “called”. Many are called, but few are chosen. It’s not contradictory evidence.
All men are justly sentenced to eternal damnation. Only those whom God chooses are spared their earned punishment. No man can understand or accept God without God’s enlightenment bestowed upon those he has chosen.
God hardened men’s hearts — if we are to believe the Bible. The phrase is meaningless if you interpret it to mean “God made men’s hearts to be what they would have been anyway”.
I find the discussion in this thread much more antagonistic than is necessary or helpful.
So you believe that an infinitely merciful and just God created independent, conscious, and responsible souls merely for the sole purpose of throwing them into Hell--through no ability of their own to repent?
How is that either merciful or just? It is contrary to the very nature of God.
Note: I am not denying we deserve punishment
Yes, that is what I believe scriptures teach.
It also makes sense to me, logically, from historical biblical evidence.
On the other hand, effectually it comes out no diffently than if you choose to believe that we all had a choice, but that God already knew our choices before the foundation of the world, and only picked to be saved those who he knew would choose him.
In either case, within our timeline, God saves those he has "chosen", and we come to saving Knowledge through his spirit bestowed upon his children.
What I have a bigger problem with is those who believe that Jesus actually died for, and offered payment to God for, every sin committed by every human who ever walked the earth, but that many make that sacrifice ineffectual by not accepting it.
I find no scriptual basis to suggest that any human agent could ever render ineffectual Jesus' perfect sacrifice -- so I think it makes much more sense that Jesus died ONLY for the sins of those who God predestined to be saved (however it is that you think he made His choice).
Except this is not a debate between Augustine and God, this is a debate between Augustine and *Calvin*.
God is always right. But people can be wrong. So who is more likely to be wrong here? Calvin and his handful of adherents? Or Augustine, who has the vast, vast majority of Christianity over 2000 years (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) to back him up?
Predestination is a complicated and difficult topic. We can differ about it to some degree. But the denial of free will is pure heresy and no Christian should hold it.
I disagree here. God doesn't make our choices for us. We choose whether we want to be with Him for all eternity--or without Him for all eternity. He then grants that wish, and lets us suffer the consequences of a bad choice.
I find no scriptual basis to suggest that any human agent could ever render ineffectual Jesus' perfect sacrifice -- so I think it makes much more sense that Jesus died ONLY for the sins of those who God predestined to be saved (however it is that you think he made His choice).
John 3:16 actually gives that basis. "Whosoever will" believe in Him should not perish, also implies that whosoever will not--will perish.
God provided the means. We must provide the will. We make the choice--God gave us that responsibility. If it were as you believe, then everyone in the world is living within God's will--thus no one sins. If no one sins, then everyone is entitled to heaven.
Since we both agree that there is sin in this world, then I think we can both agree that no one is entitled to be saved. Which means we are living outside of His will.
“You should have given the credit to the Catholic Church, so that the people would know it was not a one man opinion, even if you are not a Catholic.”
I’m sorry. I didn’t know that ‘predestination’ is part of Catholic doctrine. I presumed it to be mostly a Presbyterian thing.
Sign on the back of an 18 wheeler:
Predestined Presbyterians -————>
<-———— All others
Your basic premise is right, but perhaps you are looking at "ineffectual" from a human, earthly perspective rather than a divine one.
If I am damned, can we say His sacrifice is ineffective because I am not saved? I don't think so. It is still perfectly effective because it was an act of perfect love that would have redeemed me had I lived up to it.
It is like calling a 9-11 firefighter ineffectual because he never pulled anyone out of the WTC. The sacrifice still stands. The heroic charity is still evident. In the economy of love (which I think is as close to God's view of things as we get), it's actually quite immaterial whether he pulled anyone out or not.
Just a thought. Predestination is not a strong suit of mine.
Thanks.
Without free will, our lives would have no point and be meaningless.
God knows every choice and decision we will make and gives us the freedom to choose. He also provides us with plenty of evidence of His majesty and glory so that we may choose wisely, if we only have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Presbyterians (are Calvinists right?) believe they can know who is already predestined, don’t they. The Catholic Church teaches that no one knows who is predestined.
But he WAS ineffectual. We don't question his heart, or his character, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that his efforts failed to produce results.
I don't see how any human could snatch themselves out of the hands of God. Nor how any human could render a sacrifice which PAID for their sins ineffectual. If a man walks into court and pays your fine, you are out of jail, whether you "accept the help" or not. But if you COULD reject the money, then the money would never have been GIVEN, and the attempt would have been a failure.
Since the act of sacrifice of Jesus was a perfect sacrifice for the sin, how could any sin still have any punishment left to be rendered, for which Jesus had already paid?
This plays into an argument about the surety of salvation as well. If one COULD snatch oneself out of the hands of God, it would have to be because God allows it. But if God only chooses those whom he knows will accept his choice, why would he put anybody "in his hand" who He knows would later reject salvation?
Sorry, I guess I'm falling into the trap of adding new parts to the discussion, which might well get us off track.
bttt
And while we cannot practically do so, theoretically any physical characteristics and charges and connections COULD be fully modelled in a computer, and that computer used to gauge the reaction we would have to any stimulus, thus giving us a complete foreknowledge of action -- and disproving the concept of fre will.
You can only have free will if, given the exact same physical state and exact same input, you have the ability to rationally pick to act in multiple ways. So free will requires something outside the physical makeup of your being. Note that random chance could make it impossible to predict with certainty a response, but would still not provide "free will", since a random choice is not a "willed choice".
Whether we are chosen or not, whether God controls every tiny aspect of everything or not, from our point of view as finite, stuck-in-time creatures, we have free will. It may be an illusion, but to us it is real, and indistinguishable.
Free will outside of time is already impossible if you grant God the charactistic of Omniscience. Once I know exactly what you are going to do next, free will has no meaning. So in my opinion, any discussion of "free will" must be in regards to the point of view of one living within the confines of time and space, such as we do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.